*I know this is an extremely old article [I dug it out of the back of my closet} but it is well worth the read.

Jesus was a committed Jew of his day. And to truly understand Jesus, we need a solid background in Jewish religious, social, and political history.

Jesus, a rural Jew, lived in Galilee, in the northern part of Palestine. And in Jesus day, Galilee was divided into an upper and lower region. The lower region, where Jesus lived was a rich valley that stretched from the Mediterranean to the sea of Galilee, a distance of about 25 miles.

As far as we know, in Jesus' time there were four principle Jewish sects: The Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.

The Essenes, whose name may come from an Arabaic word meaning "pious," had already withdrawn from Jerusalem and Temple participation by the time of Jesus. In isolated monastic communities established in the Judean wilderness, they studied scriptures and developed a rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety--daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict observation of the Sabbath, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, wearing white robes as a symbol of spiritual purity, and sharing communal meals and property. Nowhere in the Gospels, however, is Jesus presented as adhering to the Essenes way of life.

Jesus was not a zealot either. Zealots were Jews who vehemently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. But there is no evidence in any of Jesus' teachings that he encouraged revolt against Rome.

Jesus also was clearly set apart from the Sadducees, whose name in Hebrew means "Righteous ones." These Jews believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah and did not believe in life after death. Jesus, of course believed in bodily resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)

Contrary to common understanding, Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees, even if he did debate them vigorously. Many of Jesus' teachings and much of his style was similar to theirs. To understand this, we need to compare the central teachings of the Pharisees to Jesus' teachings.

The Pharisees were a lay reform group within Judaism. The name Pharisee itself means "separate ones" in Hebrew, which refers to a ritual observance of purity and tithing; the word Pharisee can also be translated as "The interpreter," referring to this group's unique interpretation of Hebrew scripture.

As reformers, the Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation; rather their focus was on reforming the temple, especially with respect to its liturgical practices and priests. And the Pharisees turned their attention toward strengthening Jewish devotion to the Torah, which, they said, had to be continually readjusted within the framework of the contemporary Jewish community. While the Pharisees insisted that the 613 commandments found in the written Torah remained in effect, the commandments had to be carefully rethought in light of new human needs.

The temple priests, though, looked upon the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the Temple. The Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that every ordinary human action could become sacred--an act of worship. Doing a "good deed" for another human, a "mitzvah" in Hebrew, was accorded a status that in some ways, surpassed Temple worship. This was truly a revolution in religious thinking.

In addition, a new religious figure in Judaism--the teacher--or Rabbi--emerged within the Pharisaic movement. For their part, rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: They served as interpreters of the Torah and, more importantly, they helped make its teachings relevant. Their principle task was instructional, not liturgical.

From the Pharisaic reform emerged what was later called the synagogue ("assembly of people"). The synagogue became the center of this movement, which quickly spread throughout Palestine and the cities of Jewish Diaspora. Unlike the Jerusalem Temple, the synagogues were not places where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather they were places where the Torah was studied, rabbis offered interpretations, and prayers were said. Thus, synagogues became not merely "houses of God" but far more "houses of the people of God."

The Pharisee also emphasized table fellowship--a way of strengthening relationships within a community. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in the household of Israel. A quiet but far reaching reform was at hand. There was no longer any basis for assigning to the priestly class a unique level of authority.

The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the Covenant, and much more, but in a special way, as the Parent of each individual. Everyone had the right to address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the temple sacrifices offered by the priests.

The Pharisees also believed in resurrection. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. Then they would enjoy perpetual union with God.

There is little doubt, then, that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. The first was their basic approach to God as a parent figure. In story after story in the Gospels, Jesus addresses God in this way. And Jesus' central prayer begins by invoking God as "Our Father" (Matt. 6: 9-13). The effect of this emphasis was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees (although Jesus had a unique position as God's "Only begotten Son"). More than anything, this approach led to both an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection--and perpetual union with God.

Jesus' own public stance closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus on a number of occasions in the Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching in synagogues.

Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism as well, that of the oral Torah, which refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus offers interpretations of Scripture quite similar to those of the Pharisees.

Finally, Jesus also embraced the table fellowship notion of Pharisaism. The meal narratives in the New Testament are an example of this. In the end, He selected table fellowship for a critical of his ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist.

Then why, in the Gospels, do the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus? Here is gets complicated. For one thing, some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example the scribe of Mark 12:32). And we know that Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 14:1).

But there was still conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus, nevertheless. And here scholarship offers three possible explanations.

The first sees Jesus and his teachings as quite similar to the Pharisees. The animosity in the Gospel results from subsequent interpretations of Jesus' action. For example, Jesus' practicing healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain in the holy day were actions clearly not supported by the Pharisees.

Another possible explanation results from our enhanced understanding of the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. In the Talmud are references to some seven categories of Pharisees, which clearly shows that the Pharisaical movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints and, more important, that internal disputes, often of the heated variety, were quite common. The Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the "Pharisees" were examples of "hot debates" that were common in the Pharisaic circles rather than examples of Jesus condemning the Pharisees.

A third scholarly approach stresses positive connection between Jesus' central teachings and those of the Pharisees. In light of these, one becomes suspicious about the so-called texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common.

Hence, either Jesus was speaking in a very limited context, or what are commonly called "the conflict stories" represent religious tensions existing in the latter part of the first century when the gospels were written. The Christian community--now formally expelled from the synagogues--was engaged in intense competition for Jewish converts. The New Testament statements about conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees may reflect that competition.

Regardless, one fact remains. Jesus' own Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures. His attitude toward the sacred writings is summed up in the assertion "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish the Law but fulfill (Matt. 5:17).

On the whole, Jesus' teachings were wither literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of the scripture, or both.

The way the Pharisee and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures becomes more clear when Jesus argues his position by using so-called "proof-texts." Here, Jesus quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or refute a critic (See the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5, 6, & 7). In such instances, Jesus was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees in trying to make a point.

The "Proof-Texting" that Jesus used did, at times, pit him against the Pharisees--such as when He challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on teachings of humans than of God (Matt. 23: 1-36).; such as when He used scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12: 1-8). or unwashed hands (Matt. 15:20).

At other times though, Jesus' "proof-texting" placed him on the side of the Pharisees. Once in an impressive debate with the Saduccees, He used Hebrew scripture to reinforce his belief, and that oft he Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive he won the Pharisees' applause (Matt. 22: 23-33).

Possibly the best example we have of Jesus' use of Hebrew Scriptures is his teaching on love. "Teacher," one Pharisee asked, "which commandment is greatest?" And Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronamy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment" (Matt. 22: 36-39). Them Jesus went on quoting Leviticus 19:18, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In brief, Jesus was proof-texting his answer.

Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore, was unabashedly Jewish. And it was similar to that of his contemporaries, particularly the philosophy of the Pharisees.

Knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins has at least three advantages: First, it helps us revise negative understandings of the Pharisees. It also helps us to avoid anti-Semitism. Finally, it allows us to better appreciate the Jewish roots of Christianity. Ultimately, understanding Jesus as a Jew will help us to better understand both our own faith and that of the contemporary Jews.

Ha, ha! Agreed. There remain many perhaps who do not want to think about the fact that Jesus was indeed Jewish. Even more, He was the Jewish Messiah, come not just for the Jews, not just to fulfill God's promises to them but to save people of every tribe, tongue, and nation - all who would turn to Him!

An aside - have you heard the Mark Lowry on Broadway CD or tape?

Mark is the author of the lyrics of the wonderful modern Christian song - "Mary, Did You Know" - and he does a stunningly beautiful rendition of this song on this CD.

But he is also a comedian. (Yes, a Christian - even a BAPTIST comedian).

Some of the funny things (some might say sacriligeous perhaps - but I thought humorous) Mark Lowry says re: Jesus growing up and his mother Mary are these:

Jesus knew he was the Messiah of Israel - from a very young age - at LEAST from the age of 12. But at age 30, Jesus was still living at home....and Mary was ready for Jesus to go "Mes-sigh"......

The fantastic thing is that the first recorded miracle Jesus did was not to raise the dead or to heal the sick but to relieve the embarrassment of a wedding host who ran out of wine - to keep the party going! (that's for the dour among us who think God / Jesus is against our rejoicing and celebrating the wonderful things in life - such as a wedding).

But, remember the dialogue between Jesus and his mother? Mary - who KNOWS who her son is - has been patiently waiting for Him to go "Mes-sigh".... :-)....at this party lets Jesus know that the wine has run out. What did Jesus say to her? something to the effect: "Woman.....what would you have me to do?"

Mark Lowry says - let's stop right there. That may have been okay in Israel for Jesus to call his mother "woman" - but if I tried that, my mother would see to it I was wearing my teeth around my neck!

Lowry goes on to say - again - he has wanted to ask Mary so many things about Jesus growing up in her home. Like, did she ever tell her son- "Go clean your room...do you think you were born in a barn?"

I want to thank God for His patience with this world, with His chosen people, the Jews, with me and mine. I want to also thank Him for the sense of humor and the gift of laughter which brightens our lives.

And to any who are offended at the humor - I sincerely don't mean it in an offensive way. Shalom.

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

But... What does the Jewish Tanakh (Masorectic Text) say:

Isaiah 7:14 "Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel."

How did the original text of 'young woman' get CHANGED to a 'virgin'???

The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Bethulah."

The Hebrew word HaAlmah was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as Bethulah in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek.

According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.

Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? The Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin.

Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.

Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.

The Jews, contrary to false tradition, did not translate the Prophets or the Writings into Greek. The Rabbis only translated the Torah. This means that Alexandrian Jews or non-Jews translated the rest of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek much later and the Rabbis from Palestine had nothing to do with it. This explains why pagan traditions crept into the text and the translation.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of almah-young woman which conveyed a completely different idea... parthenos-virgin.

71 Rabbis translated the Torah; yet it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Essene (proto-Christians) authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake was intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!

Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy!

Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.

Not quite accurate. First of all, the Jews did execute....'stoning' and beheading. The Jews had control over 'religious' problems... the Romans had control over 'state' problems. This would indicate that Jesus was seen as more of a STATE problem (declaring himself 'King'). This would be seen as TREASON and its punishment was the most harsh...crucifixion (a gentile death), reserved for offenses against the STATE. The Romans were not concerned if Jews blasphemed as in the alledged case of Jesus declaring himself God.... the Romans called themselves Gods all the time.... nope, the crucifixion wasn't about Jesus declaring himself God, it was because of the 'King' of the Jews statement. He was seen as a threat to the government.

Perhaps, then, you could explain why the Jews didn't execute him. It wasn't because he was a gentile. The Jews not only decided that Jesus had to die, they tried to carry it out a couple of times and were not successful. True, they did slip up and kill other Jews that didn't speak Pharisee PC but it was illegal nonetheless and they were penalized for it.

Jesus was not seen as a state problem to the Romans. Pilate said he found no fault in the man and would have released Jesus save the frothing Jewish crowd. Rome later viewed Christianity as a political threat (to justify its oppression) but Roman historians referred to it as a Jewish sect.

About Romans calling themselves gods all the time, it would be nice to see some supporting evidence or even rational arguments for this or any of your positions; All I have read so far is only your unsupported personal opinion. Some Caesars referred to themselves as god. How that qualifies as "many" is not readily apparent. The threat to Rome was Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as God. Apparently the unconverted Jews had no problem giving lip service to Roman demands to secure their survival. Poor Mattathias, Judas the Hammer, Jonathan and John Hyrcanus, proud and faithful Jews who refused to burn incense to any pagan god. In only 150 years the Hasidim-turned-Pharisees had turned their backs on the reason for Purim.

Don't bother to respond to this post. You will first need to spend much time learning about the subjects of which you speak.

In the Old Testament, the word mashiach means a "king" (literally, "the one who has been annointed"). It is a political, not spiritual, concept that has no meaning comparable to the meaning of the English word "messiah." Later, during the Babylonian exile, the Jews hoped for the restoration of an independent Judea and began to foretell the coming of the "Messiah," i.e., the return of a legitimate Jewish king.Nowhere in the OT does the word "messiah" have anything like the meaning that the Christians later gave it.

Such a bold statement you make! I will not ask you for your historical sources because you have absolutely none. So here is your history lesson:

Notice that Messiah and Christ mean EXACTLY the same thing in both languages.

Now, who anticipated a Messiah? The Pharisees, the Essenes and the Zealots. Some expected two Messiahs; one a priest and one a king. Others like most Pharisees and Zealots expected a political deliverer. They were expecting ONE LIKE MOSES. FYI, there have been many Jewish kings since Moses including David, Solomon, and the Hasmoneans. None of them were the ONE LIKE MOSES. Once when some Pharisees were speaking with Jesus he asked them,

"What do you think about the Christ and whose son is he?"

They said to him "The Son of David."

You can find this at the end of Matthew chapter 22. There are more instances of discussions with the Jewish leaders about the Annointed One but if you are interested, you can search for them.

One final error I must correct: If the idea of a Messiah began with the Babylonian captivity, why is it that we find references to one beginning in Genesis? No offense meant, but please don't bother to respond unless you first arm yourself with some facts.

This would clearly be enough to make most Torah Jews skeptical of Jesus as the messiah because of the correlations.

It was the corrupt Jewish leadership, not Jews in general who objected to Christ. The early Church was made up almost exclusively of Jews and Christianity spread like wildfire. Even the Great teacher Gamaliel observed the following:

Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council ... and said, "Men of Israel, take chare what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

Gamaliel, too, would disagree with you.

The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.

This is the very first thing you've gotten right so far. Unfortunately, you continue and get it wrong:

Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English.

Metropolis means "mother city." How sneaky of DC Comics to pull that on us. They should have called it "Mother City." Your argument borders on the absurd. Some Greek and Latin roots are generally recognized without a knowledge of the language such as Photos, Graphos, Eros, Lumenos, Pneuma and Gnosis. To blame the translators for your inability to discern the implications of LUC and IFER is exceedingly shallow. It also shows your ignorance of the process of translation. Certain other words, such as "baptism" are transliterated precisely because they have become ENGLISH words, as was the case with LUCIFER.

The problem though is that Jews KNEW/KNOW that man cannot be God.

Hmmmmm. I wonder if you can explain any of the Theophanies in the OT? Naaa.

Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like.

You pretend to be well read in the Scriptures. How, then, could you miss any of the Messianic references in the Psalms?

DAVID SAYS: "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, Thou are My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy posession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware. Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling, kiss the Son, lest he become angry and you perish in the way..."

"Kiss the Son" was bowing down before the king by kissing his feet. That passage was from Psalm 2. Here's another from Psalm 110:

The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."

If you looked at an earlier quote from the end of Matthew 22, you would have noticed that Jesus silenced the Pharisees by asking who David's Lord was.

There are many more passages. One should have been enough to discredit your unsupported assertions. As for the rest of your post, it is rife with logical fallacies, bad history and strange etymology. I hope, for the sake of the lurkers, I have clearly exposed the wolf.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of ?almah-young woman? which conveyed a completely different idea... ?parthenos-virgin.?

The Greek translation was done by Jews centuries before Christ. Why do you think they chose "virgin"? They were 2200 years closer to the language than you are. It wouldn't really be a sign if a man were born of a young woman, would it? The reason the Greek translation is designated by LXX, as you should know, is because there were seventy JEWish scholars (scholars!) who claimed that the translation was unanimous--- NOT ONE dissenter.

I happened into a very nice antique store today. There were some beautiful plaster bookends showing a lion with his paw on the throat of a hissing serpent. If they were metal, I would have purchased them. I like the symbolism.

Perhaps, then, you could explain why the Jews didn't execute him. It wasn't because he was a gentile. The Jews not only decided that Jesus had to die, they tried to carry it out a couple of times and were not successful. True, they did slip up and kill other Jews that didn't speak Pharisee PC but it was illegal nonetheless and they were penalized for it.

Jesus was not seen as a state problem to the Romans. Pilate said he found no fault in the man and would have released Jesus save the frothing Jewish crowd.

No. Perhaps YOU can explain why the Jews didn't execute him, since you suggest that Pilate had no complaint with him? The Procurators of the time did NOT go out of their way to pacify Jews. Just the opposite.

All I have read so far is only your unsupported personal opinion. Some Caesars referred to themselves as god. How that qualifies as "many" is not readily apparent. The threat to Rome was Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as God. Apparently the unconverted Jews had no problem giving lip service to Roman demands to secure their survival. Poor Mattathias, Judas the Hammer, Jonathan and John Hyrcanus, proud and faithful Jews who refused to burn incense to any pagan god. In only 150 years the Hasidim-turned-Pharisees had turned their backs on the reason for Purim.

Yes the Caesar's.... and to even such an extent as wanting their images placed inside the sanctuary. And yes, it seems some Jews did pay lip service to save their butts. Josephus being one! And a particular Rabbi whose name escapes me at the moment. They both, unknowing to the other chose to kiss Roman hiney by telling Vespasian that 'he' was the 'Star Prophecy'! lol

Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council ... and said, "Men of Israel, take chare what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

Gamaliel, too, would disagree with you.

Actually, Gamaliel proves my point, thank you! What he is saying is let God handle it. "for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

If this plan of action should be of men, it will be overthrown... arrested and executed is uhhh OVERTHROWN! The Messiah is supposed to reign as King...like King David did...

As to the rest of your post. There ARE Messianic prophecies... just not always the ones the church chose to use out of context. There were plenty of alledged messiah's besides the two mentioned by Gamaliel.

Judah the Galilean, about 10 BCE Theudas Josephus also mentions a Jew from Egypt Simon Bar-Kochba, Around 133 CE Moses of Crete-A large number followed him to a cliff on the coast of Crete, where he commanded them to dive into the water, which was supposed to miraculously part before them. As a consequence a great many trusting souls met their death. In the early middle ages, with the rise of Islam, (about 700 CE) one Abu 'Isa proclaimed himself Messiah David Alroy-During the Second Crusade, in the early 12th century, a magician/adventurer Maimonides reports that in 1172 a "Messiah" arose in Yemen. In the late 13th century, a Sicilian Kabbalist named Abulafia, or Abraham ben Samuel, began circulating apocalyptic literature. He prophesied Messiah would come in 1295, and considered himself either the Messiah or his messenger. Around 1500, Asher Lämmlin became the first Ashkenazic Messianic claimant. David Reubeni was a man of charisma who believed he had a mission to restore the Jews to Eretz Israel. He denied that he was "the Messiah," but was nevertheless hailed as such by many admirers. Among his admirers was a proselyte who took the name Solomon Molko. These two joined forces, but were eventually arrested by the Inquisition. Molko was executed and Reubeni imprisoned. Shabbetai Tsevi Jacob Frank was one of several who claimed to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Tsevi. He preached that the Redemption had not come in 1666 because the Jews were not fully repentant. Frank reasoned (if you can call it reason), that the people had not been repentant because their sinful appetites were not yet satisfied! Frank's "solution" was to indulge every impulse until it was no longer attractive; only then would men be ready to repent! This bizarre theology attracted many followers, but did not convince the Rabbis, who excommunicated Frank in 1765. (This one reminds me of Rasputin and his 'Klyst' movement!) In modern times, the Lubavitcher Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn has been proclaimed Messiah by certain members of the Chabad movement.

There were plenty of people thinking they were THE messiah.

Since you are oh so much more knowledgable than me, would you please point out the OLD TESTAMENT (Tanakh) verses where it speaks of a messiah that will come, be crucified, then return again, for a 'second attempt' at fulfilling prophecy. Thank you oh so much!

Certainly the piercing of the sword and missing from the grave would have been in the near future, but the point IS those that KNEW the scriptures (Old Testament) would know of the OT verses directed at the enemies of God, and when they saw or heard things coming from Jesus or from those that followed him, they would be able to put the two together. This would clearly be enough to make most Torah Jews skeptical of Jesus as the messiah because of the correlations. As time went on and more became known, such as the piercing, missing from the grave, darkness at his death etc, they would know that they had been right in rejecting Jesus.

This is all regarding the archetypal enemies of G-d. You point out many different archetypes and then point out how Yeshua might have had something in common with each of them. But I suggest that, if you truly wish to understand G-d and His word you need to look deeper. To scatter enemies of G-d all over the (circumstantial) map and to point to their external circumstances as evidence of their negative relationship with Him is, in my way of thinking, a stretch. All of the archetypal enemies of G-d exalted themselves over G-d. This is the one thing they have in common and, to my way of thinking, the likely cause of their enmity with G-d, just as it was the cause of Adam's sin. This common point makes all those other diverse points moot. As I pointed out, Yeshua did not exalt Himself over G-d, but waited for G-d to do that. You rightly quote Matthew 26:64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." This quote infuriated the leaders. But in this quote Yeshua did not exalt Himself. He did not say, "I will do it." Rather, He said, "You will see it." This is simply a prophecy. If it does happen, it shows that G-d has exalted Yeshua. If it doesn't happen, it shows that Yeshua was a fool. But it does not show Yeshua exalting Himself.

I have never seen this list of the archetypes of the enemies of G-d before, and I thank you for showing it to me. But my own interpretation is that Yeshua met these physical circumstances while still being glorified by G-d just to prove His favorite point. Matthew 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." It's the issue of the heart that makes one an enemy of G-d, not the issue of the physical circumstances.

The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which was written about 300 before the Christians came onto the scene, translates heylel as "heosphoros", the Greek word for the Morning Star. Similarly, when St. Jerome wrote the Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate, written about 6 centuries later, he knew that heylel meant the Morning Star. Accordingly, he translated it as "LUCIFER", the Latin word which was used to refer to the Morning Star. Note that in Roman culture the Morning Star was considered the son of the dawn goddess, Aurora. The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.

Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English. This unbalanced approach is why the KJV reads with the Latin word sticking out in the English sentence like a sore thumb: "How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn..."

Dataman has answered this one well. Anyone who is serious about studying G-d's word and does not know Greek and Hebrew uses interlinear Bibles and tools such as Strong's concordance, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament (TWOT), and others. We are not fooled. As I indicated, there is great depth in the verse referred to. A true Christian doesn't fear that depth, but mines it to the glory of HaShem.

Because Isa 14:12 talks about an enemy of GOD (the king of Babylon), some Christians, down through the centuries, began to assume "Lucifer" to be another name for Satan. Although there is no other place in the Bible where Satan is called by this name, Luke refers to Satan falling from the sky "like lightning". This similarity is probably what tempted Christians to make the connection. The fact that Isaiah talked about the king of Babylon is usually overlooked (and the fact that there are many more similarities to Jesus's own execution and the deeds for which he was arrested is entirely lost on them). At any rate, this man-made tradition is the only reason why "Lucifer" ever became a name for Satan. What is ironic (to anyone who knows Latin) is that the very presence in the KJV of the Latin word, "Lucifer", itself, serves as a tell-tale sign that the verse should be translated using the words, "Morning Star". But, alas, Protestants are not taught Latin in Sunday School.

Actually, it is not unusual to reevaluate a prophecy in light of later events. It is not wrong to attribute the verse in Isaiah as relating to the King of Babylon. It is not wrong to attribute them to Satan. Just like I said, great depth.

BTW: I notice you give King James' translators a pass at renaming the Apostle Jacob to James. All serious students know the liberties taken.

So, what's the association with Babylon about? Babylon is the land to the east of Israel, the land of the sunrise and morning star. Also, the Babylonian religion held that the Morning Star was a manifestation of one their major deities. This is why Isaiah called the king of Babylon the Morning Star. And, this is why the major bibles, NIV, RSV, NASB, and Strong's concordance, among others, translate heylel as "Morning Star".

This said, it must not be lost upon the reader that such an appellation was given to the prideful man who would call himself God. That is the underlying message of the passage, and the fate of the king of Babylon foreshadows that of another man who thought he would ascend to the clouds of heaven (and, we should remind folks that these passages in Isa 14 do indeed say that they speak of a man, not an angel).

It is not lost. No one should give Himself such a name. But if G-d gives a man such a name, what should we then do? Is it the name that condemns? Again, I point you to the self-exaltation of the King of Babylon.

Matthew 26:64

Well, I already dealt with that.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." He says 'Son of man '.... so in this manner you are correct that he didn't call himself God...

I said He didn't exalt Himself. G-d revealed Him as equal to G-d, but Yeshua did not shy away from that naming. He made no secret about who He was. That's why He was crucified. He could very easily have told the Sanhedrin, "I never claimed to be G-d." if He had not so claimed.

What was expected of the Messiah?

I am aware that this is the hardest part for the Jews. It is because we recognize something that was left out of the prophecy that Yeshua inserted. To whit read Luke 4:18-19 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Now read the verse in Isaiah which Yeshua was reading at the time. Isaiah 61:1-2 "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,"

Why did Yeshua leave out the day of vengance of our G-d? It was because the day of vengance would come later. In other words, the prophecy was written as if it were one event, but Yeshua taught that it would come in two events. First would be the initial stage, preaching of the Gospel, binding up the borkenhearted, proclaiming freedom, and announcing the year of the LORD's favor. There is another stage yet to come. Is it legal for a prophecy to be split in half like this? We know that prophets do not see everything clearly. The question is, does your reading make it illegal to split the prophecy in half like this?

The Scripture leaves room. The empty tomb made it clear.

Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts the concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation.

I've dealt with this point elsewhere.

You wrote many things about the true Messiah. They were all accurate. We wait for them with our friends the Jews. We long for them. Maranatha is our cry!

While on the cross Jesus is quoted as saying, "Forgive them, Father, for they (the Jews) know not what they do." Why do some Christians insist on persecuting the Jews if Jesus himself gave instructions to forgive them?

Some Christians do not know very much about Yeshua.

If his rising from the dead was so crucial to demonstrate who he was, why did this take place in secret and not in the presence of his "thousands" of devotees?

He met with hundereds of devotees after he arose. As for why he allowed the actual resurrection to be shrouded in mystery, you will have to ask Him.

Jesus claimed that he did not intend to change the Laws of Moses?"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) and the Prophets, I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5). Later on, the New Testament attests that he himself abrogated some of the laws, while his followers eventually abolished or changed nearly all of them. Personally I believe the New Testament to be less than credible in describing events where Jesus supposedly broke the Law or changed the Law. Jesus may have had a difference of opinion in interpretation but he followed the Law and taught others to do the same. Hillel vs Shammai.

You have it correct. Yeshua came not to abolish (improperly interpret) the Law but to fulfill (properly interpret) it. He corrected some misunderstandings, but did not break the law. However, He did not come to bring the Law, given to the Jews, to the Gentiles. They do not have the covenant of Moses.

If Jesus was really the Messiah, why does the New Testament admit that all the rabbis of the time, without one exception, rejected his claim? Why was there not one man of learning, nor one prominent leader who accepted him? Because they KNEW their scriptures! They used the Masoretic texts and didn't have to rely upon Greek translations and mis-translations and deliberate false translations.

Nicodemus, Joseph of Aramathea, Gamaliel, and Saul (later known to Christians as Paul) were all lerned Pharisees who received Yeshua's claim. It may be that no prominent leader received Yeshua's claim because of the implications for their power over the people. Or it may be that no prominant leader was named in the New Testament because such things did not interest those who wrote them.

Who was in a position to judge if he was or was not the Messiah?his own people, who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Messiah, or pagan peoples who had no understanding of what the concept really meant?

Well, considering that there were no pagans in the Nazarene sect until around 15 years after Yeshua's death, I would say it was His own people.

If God has "rejected" the Jews for not "accepting Jesus" as Christians claim, why have the Jewish People managed to survive 2,000 years of Christian persecution? How do Christians explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has God restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people?

Use the word "some" when you write things like that. I know that G-d has not rejected Israel. The current existence of Israel is one of the chief proofs that G-d exists and that He keeps His promises. Read Romans 11-13 for the true Christian understanding of the ongoing relationship of G-d and the Jews. I don't know any Christians who believe that G-d has rejected the Jews, although I know it has been taught in our history. Careful scholarship (and a little reading of the obvious) has shown us where the political battle between the Synagogues of Yeshua and the Synagogues of the Jews crept into theology.

Luke 21:31-33 "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

What does 'this generation' mean to you, in the context of which Jesus supposedly said them?

I believe it meant the people alive in that day. All of the things the preceeded the quote came to pass. Many saw the Kingdome breaking through in Yeshua's miracles. Three saw Yeshua glorified on a mountain top talking with Moses and Elijah. All saw the empty tomb. There is more of His prophecy yet to come, but the things that He said would happen before that generation passed, including the destruction of the Temple, came to pass.

James disagreed with Paul, and James was the head of the Jerusalem Church.

As far as I know, James did not disagree with Paul. Read Acts 15.

James considered Paul 'apostate' (without Law).

This is a new one to me. Can you cite a reference?

Interesting that in the Mary visitations she speaks of the great apostasy. The 'great falling away from the Law??

I am not a Catholic. I am not likely to be swayed from Biblical text by a visitation from anyone, not even the Holy Bearer of G-d.

According to the flesh...is sex.... 'seed' shows direct lineage.

As I understand it, Mary was also of the lineage of David, but not of the accursed king. That would make it a fleshly relationship. However, the lineage is also traced through Joseph so that Yeshua would have the right to sit on the throne.

Now, as to the reason I hate these long threads. You originally started with the archetype issue and have now seriously broadned your position. You did this because you aren't really trying to work with me or understand me, you are trying to attack me. In an attack, if I thwart your attack from one position you simply move to another. That is valid strategy. In a discussion, especially a persuasive discussion, you don't leave one point until it has been satsfied. So, even though this is a very long post, I would only like you to address the part about the archetypal enemies of G-d. Are you convinced, or do you have something else to say on the matter to convince me? Have the courage to stand on this particular ground until all is complete, as any true seeker of knowledge would do. I will stand here with you.

The same words were used regarding the archtypes, that were used regarding Jesus.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82

Unfortunately the gods mentioned in Psalm 82 are 'wicked', and why did Jesus say 'is it not written in your law'??? Psalms is NOT Law!!!! The first 5 books are Torah/Law!

No. Perhaps YOU can explain why the Jews didn't execute him, since you suggest that Pilate had no complaint with him? The Procurators of the time did NOT go out of their way to pacify Jews. Just the opposite.

It is likely that you are not aware that Pilate was already taken to the woodshed once by Caesar because the Jews (Jewish leadership, that is) were complaining about him. That's why Pilate washed his hands: He wouldn't kill an innocent man yet feared displeasing the crowd (whipped into a lather by the leadership) would endanger his political future. Pilate was also a known anti-semite (the PC term) and probably was not too concerned about allowing a Jew to be executed.

If this plan of action should be of men, it will be overthrown... arrested and executed is uhhh OVERTHROWN! The Messiah is supposed to reign as King...like King David did...

Gamaliel went on to say that the followers scattered. I would say that the Christians multiplied, not scattered. You assume as well that Jesus stayed dead. You also assume-- and you are in good company-- that the Christ would overthrow the Roman government. Will not the Christ reign "in that day" as Isaiah says? Will there not be a thousand years in which there will be no need for one man to say to the other "Know the Lord" because they will all know him? Did not Jesus say that he will return to reign? Jesus spoke of another kingdom, too, that is not of this world.

Since you are oh so much more knowledgable than me, would you please point out the OLD TESTAMENT (Tanakh) verses where it speaks of a messiah that will come, be crucified, then return again, for a 'second attempt' at fulfilling prophecy. Thank you oh so much!

Do I detect an unteachable spirit? For the sake of the lurkers I will comply.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 5th.)
(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 5th.)
(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave?thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used?just as predicted?for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 11th.)
(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 13th.)
(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 15th.)
(6) Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 9th.)
(7) The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 18th.)
(8) The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).
This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment?in our lifetime.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 120.)
(9) Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 5th.)
(10) Joshua prophesied that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man. He also said that the man's eldest son would die when the reconstruction began and that his youngest son would die when the work reached completion (Joshua 6:26). About five centuries later this prophecy found its fulfillment in the life and family of a man named Hiel (I Kings 16:33-34).
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10~).
(11) The day of Elijah's supernatural departure from Earth was predicted unanimously?and accurately, according to the eye-witness account?by a group of fifty prophets (II Kings 2:3-11).
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 9th).
(12) Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat and a tiny band of men would defeat an enormous, well-equipped, well-trained army without even having to fight. Just as predicted, the King and his troops stood looking on as their foes were supernaturally destroyed to the last man (II Chronicles 20).
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 8th).
(13) One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (I Kings 13:2 and II Kings 23:15-18). This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.
(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 13th).
Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)?that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

The same words were used regarding the archtypes, that were used regarding Jesus.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

I presume I don't need to show you where Son of Man is used to refer to good guys as well. You belittle yourself more than me with this weak argument.

John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82The same words were used regarding the archtypes, that were used regarding Jesus. Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82

Unfortunately the gods mentioned in Psalm 82 are 'wicked', and why did Jesus say 'is it not written in your law'??? Psalms is NOT Law!!!! The first 5 books are Torah/Law!

You raise two points here. For the first, Yeshua was pointing out to them that, even in their Scriptures, the prophet refers to the sons of men as gods. I agree with you that this is not an attempt to say that men are Gods, as the LDS church teaches. But Yeshua is merely saying that if the writer of the Psalm was not blaspheming in this passage, which the Jews considered Holy, then He could not be blaspheming by calling the one whom G-d has sanctified a Son of G-d. I trust this point was clear. Also, note again that Yeshua gives all the glory to G-d.

Unfortunately the gods mentioned in Psalm 82 are 'wicked', and why did Jesus say 'is it not written in your law'??? Psalms is NOT Law!!!! The first 5 books are Torah/Law!

This is your other point, and another of the reasons that I don't like these kinds of posts. We still are not done with the archetype question and you are trying to move on. In the passage quoted we are only told that Yeshua was speaking with "The Jews." To John, "The Jews" meant the residents of Judea. We do not know the scholarly make-up of the crowd. We know that Torah is the first five books of Moses. Yeshua knew that also. However we don't know what the crowd new nor how they referred to the Psalms. For all I know, they believed the entire TANAK was Law. If you know otherwise (scholarly research, not personal speculation) then I am open to learning it. But later. It is not part of the original point.

The history of the Jews is a history of rebellious children. They killed their own prophets and turned their backs on God regularly. After seeing all the miracles of the Exodus, after observing the pillar of fire, they made an idol out of their posessions and said "This is the god that led us out of Egypt." For a time they were so absolutely corrupt, they even discarded their own Scriptures, put idols in God's temple and practiced sacred prostitution.

ArGee & I understand that we, non-Jews are no better than those rebellious children. You, ET, on the other hand, give the impression that somehow you are different than your ancestors --yet you are not.

No one can be forced to believe the truth nor should they be forced to embrace a lie. We are aware of what the Jews do to their own if they get too close to Christianity. It is not as uncivilized as what the Moslems do but it is enough to hold most in check. I do not fault you for adhering to your position. May your eyes be opened as were those of Saul of Tarsus.

We still are not done with the archetype question and you are trying to move on. In the passage quoted we are only told that Yeshua was speaking with "The Jews." To John, "The Jews" meant the residents of Judea. We do not know the scholarly make-up of the crowd. We know that Torah is the first five books of Moses. Yeshua knew that also. However we don't know what the crowd new nor how they referred to the Psalms. For all I know, they believed the entire TANAK was Law. If you know otherwise (scholarly research, not personal speculation) then I am open to learning it. But later. It is not part of the original point.

Oh, I'm not trying to move on.... I posted yet another example which by the way you sidetepped. In Psalms 82 isn't the writer calling the gods 'wicked'?

For all I know, they believed the entire TANAK was Law. Indeed. All the better and easier to deceive them, eh? The Jews would/should have known... but the gentiles could be easily deceived by such a statement/comment!

Hope this one is simple enough for you! I haven't been trying to move on, its just that these things are intertwined. And I DO plan to get back to the disagreement between James and Paul. But, I'll wait until you are ready. As for finishing the archtypes, I doubt we will ever agree on them. But they are there just the same.

No one can be forced to believe the truth nor should they be forced to embrace a lie. .

Depending on one's perspective of course.

We are aware of what the Jews do to their own if they get too close to Christianity.

As opposed to what Christians have done to one another, because they didn't agree on certain points? There is plenty of blood on the hands of the early Roman church, too, lest you forget! Not to mention the Roman christians that killed off the Jewish christians, enabling the Roman version of christianity to survive and become the new religion of the time.

It is not as uncivilized as what the Moslems do but it is enough to hold most in check.

Killing is killing. No matter which religion it is done under.

I do not fault you for adhering to your position. May your eyes be opened as were those of Saul of Tarsus

May your eyes be opened to what has been 'overwritten', and may you hear the words of God, over those of 'Saul', for the two are not the same.

I recognize that as a blessing, but it can also be a curse. One of the things that happened to Rev. Shaul when he was blinded by the Shekinah of G-d was that he spent three days with nothing but his thoughts. Given that he was a student of Gimaliel, I'm sure he spent the entire three days going over Scriptures in his mind. He was probably reviewing the Scriptures he had used to justify persecuting the Christians. Having been faced with the reality of Yeshua, he had to find out whether he needed to throw the Scriptures out or whether he had been misinterpreting them all along.

Acts tells us he constantly went to the Jews first, and argued from the Scriptures that Yeshua was the Messiah. I guess that, during those three days, he realized he had been interpreting Scripture wrong.

As you say, Dataman, you and I are no better. Had not Christ opened our eyes, we would still be blind.

To ET I would only say, stop attacking and open your heart. You may still decide that Yeshua was not Messiah, but do not do so out of the hardness of your heart. Stop saying, "G-d cannot" as you did so often during your one post. Start saying, "G-d, did you?"

And may you meet the Risen Christ so He may open your eyes as He has opened mine.

You keep attacking me, by saying that I am attacking. Where have I attacked??? What do YOU consider an attack? Questions? If so, then I guess I inadvertantly attacked you....

You've accused me of 'moving on' yet I see once again that you evaded the reference in Psalms 82..... tsk, tsk... darn those pesky facts, they just won't go away! Why did Jesus refer to Psalms as law?????

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.